Intellectually-honest & Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Copyright by John T. Reed
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
<snip>
Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics I have identified thus far. I would appreciate any help from readers to expand the list or to better define each tactic. I am numbering the list in order to refer back to it quickly elsewhere at this Web site.
Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that dream stealers will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is negative; in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word professor is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being too intense, a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as disgruntled or bitter. These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent.
Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent
Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Roberts Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, Theyre just trying to sell newspapers or in my case, booksquestioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponents facts or logic wrong is it invalid. If my facts or logic are wrong, my motive may be the answer to why. But lets cut out the middleman of why my facts or logic are wrong and just point exactly what the error is. Pointing out the suspicious motive only indicates there is no error, just an attempt to insinuate an error by innuendo.
....much more....